A scientific and perspective question

[shadowstriker86]

but who's to say entropy has a maximum though? just a question cause if i remember right the definition of entropy is an undefined definition of something that can't be fully explained via scientific method, or something like that its been a while since ive been in a physics class

When I refer to entropy, I refer mainly to the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium. To explain in basic terms: when you have a system of interacting particles without any discernible outside influence, these particles share energy between each other as they interact within their environment. The amount of energy attributed to particles may vary, some with greater energy potential than others, transferring different amounts of energy to other particles upon reaction.

However, eventually this energy will not dissipate, but will equalize between the particles involved so that every particle in the system has the same energy as every other particle, thus removing all potential interaction.

For a very crude example of the sort of thing I'm talking about, imagine an ice-block and a cup of hot water, each of these containing the same amount of H2O. Now if they were both placed within the same container, they would react. The ice-block would cool the hot water, and the hot water would melt the ice-block. Eventually, however, they would reach the same temperature, the water would cool due to the ice-block's influence to the same point at which the ice block would melt due to the hot water's influence. You would end up with a container of water at one temperature and the reaction between the hot and cold materials would be over.

If you think of this in terms of the universe, the large amount of energy contained within the big bang is presently propelling everything outwards. However, once this energy has been transferred outwards there will no longer be an asymmetrical force pushing everything out against the force of gravity. At which point gravity will pull everything towards everything else and the universe will collapse in on itself.

ah ok i get what you're sayin now

 

[IxionIndustries]

You would see where the construction workers are still building at.

 

[Kasawd]

You would see where the construction workers are still building at.

Then the inter-galactic catcalls would start.

 

[thom_cat_]

It's an unknown, but the universe is expanding, so we assume the universe is expanding into an infinite void, put simply.

 

[Kubanator]

Please do explain. I am speaking merely from a layman's perspective (I'm studying a Computer Science major, not a Physics major), and I'm more than open to objection.

Quantum mechanics dictates the physics of the very small, down to picometers. It dictates randomness, unpredictability. For example, atoms can spontaneously appear. Protons can disappear. A new big bang could occur out of no where. In reality, these changes are so small it would take a large period of time for them to do anything, but it does ensure that the universe will never balance out. Also, it says that light is both a wave, like sound, and a particle, like an electron. And promotes the idea of infinite realities. It's really interesting stuff, if physics is your thing.

 

[shadowstriker86]

Please do explain. I am speaking merely from a layman's perspective (I'm studying a Computer Science major, not a Physics major), and I'm more than open to objection.

Quantum mechanics dictates the physics of the very small, down to picometers. It dictates randomness, unpredictability. For example, atoms can spontaneously appear. Protons can disappear. A new big bang could occur out of no where. In reality, these changes are so small it would take a large period of time for them to do anything, but it does ensure that the universe will never balance out. Also, it says that light is both a wave, like sound, and a particle, like an electron. And promotes the idea of infinite realities. It's really interesting stuff, if physics is your thing.

wouldnt that violate the law of conservation though?

 

[Epicurus]

Quantum mechanics dictates the physics of the very small, down to picometers. It dictates randomness, unpredictability. For example, atoms can spontaneously appear. Protons can disappear. A new big bang could occur out of no where. In reality, these changes are so small it would take a large period of time for them to do anything, but it does ensure that the universe will never balance out. Also, it says that light is both a wave, like sound, and a particle, like an electron. And promotes the idea of infinite realities. It's really interesting stuff, if physics is your thing.

I only have a very rudimentary understanding of Quantum Mechanics, but perhaps I'll have to look into it some more. I doubt anything to do with quantum mechanics will be involved, but I am studying a unit on Physics simulation using computer programming next year. Should be very interesting.

 

[fulano]

Please do explain. I am speaking merely from a layman's perspective (I'm studying a Computer Science major, not a Physics major), and I'm more than open to objection.

Quantum mechanics dictates the physics of the very small, down to picometers. It dictates randomness, unpredictability. For example, atoms can spontaneously appear. Protons can disappear. A new big bang could occur out of no where. In reality, these changes are so small it would take a large period of time for them to do anything, but it does ensure that the universe will never balance out. Also, it says that light is both a wave, like sound, and a particle, like an electron. And promotes the idea of infinite realities. It's really interesting stuff, if physics is your thing.

Excuse me?! Sorry but no. Atoms cannot appear "spontaneously," that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Also, a big bang cannot occur "out of nowhere," either.

I don't even understand what you mean about how the universe "will never balance out."

What are you talking about?

 

[Onichanbura]

I find it hilarious that the original post stated that he loved science so much. If that were the case perhaps he would have read already that the universe having an "edge" is utter and complete impossibility.

 

[Kubanator]

Excuse me?! Sorry but no. Atoms cannot appear "spontaneously," that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. Also, a big bang cannot occur "out of nowhere," either.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

I don't even understand what you mean about how the universe "will never balance out."

What are you talking about?

Due to the random localized fluctuations of energy, the universe will never reach a state where every point in the universe has an energy that is considered equal.

 

[T5seconds]

Hmm... I'll let you know when I find out.

"Little rocket man burning out fumes out in space"

Cookies for reference

 

[Kubanator]

You wouldn't be able to see it. Also, stating that you are a Christian had no relevance to the topic.

You can't see black holes but you can describe what they look like.

 

[thiosk]

The "Edge of the Universe" is a purely philosophical problem at this time.

I suggest reading the following wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Brain busting parts:

While special relativity constrains objects in the Universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such constraint when space itself is expanding. This means that the size of the observable universe could be smaller than the entire universe; there are some parts of the Universe which might never be close enough for the light to overcome the speed of the expansion of space, in order to be observed on Earth. Some parts of the Universe which are currently observable may later be unobservable due to ongoing expansion.

Some parts of the Universe may simply be too far away for the light from there to have reached Earth, but despite the expansion of space, at a later time could be observed.

I find the concept of the "light horizon" to be helpful. If the object emitted light, and then the expansion of the universe carried it far enough away, its quite possible that we have still not seen its light here on earth, 13.8 billion years later. We define the size of the universe as what we can see, but what about the stuff we havn't had time to see yet? It could totally be out there.

 

[ZombieVictor]

the edge would be like the cigarette burn in Fight club then go back to the beginning or....the other side. Well at least there wouldn't be any giant penis. If you don't know what i mean watch Fight club lol.

How are you sure there wouldn't be a giant penis?

 

[Epicurus]

You can't see black holes but you can describe what they look like.

Black and holey, I should imagine.

 

[Kubanator]

Black and holey, I should imagine.

Well, no. We could infer what it looks like through ti's gravitational field and the x-rays it emits. Just because you can't see something with your eyes doesn't mean you can't describe it.

 

[Lieju]

There isn't an edge to the universe, any more than there is an edge on this planet where you can step over the rim and fall from the face of earth.

 

[avatar_vii]

you would see a massage appear in the top-left of your vision saying "you cannot go any further. Go back". you know it's true.

 

[SonicKoala]

You would come to a wall of glass, on the other side of which would be a normal family having dinner in their living room - you'd then slowly realize that we are all living inside a giant snow globe; then your head would explode.

 

[Epicurus]

Black and holey, I should imagine.

Well, no. We could infer what it looks like through ti's gravitational field and the x-rays it emits. Just because you can't see something with your eyes doesn't mean you can't describe it.

Haha, I know. I was just making an awful joke.